September 3, 2012

Says Rasmussen, in its announcement of the daily presidential tracking poll. The basic numbers are the same as yesterday: Romney 48%, Obama 44%. This is the first day in which the tracking poll — which includes 3 days — is based entirely on post-convention polling.

I'm very interested in the way the gender politics game is playing out. It seems that the Democrats have pushed very hard making a special offer to women — positing a "war on women" and so forth. But they're only up one point with women, which seems to be less than the usual skewing of females toward the Democratic Party. One might anticipate that the war-on-women politics would repel some men, but it looks like it's failing to work on women too.

You've got Republicans getting a 10-point advantage in the gender gap, when it's the other party doing the gender politics. Does that mean gender politics is now a bad strategy? Not necessarily. Obama might be doing even worse without it. (That's an argument in the pattern of Obama's argument about the economy: You're not better off than you were 4 years ago, but the economy would have plunged worse without the help I've been providing.)

It's also possible that gender politics can work for the Democrats, but they haven't been doing it right this time. What's distinctive about the way they've been doing it in 2012?

First, they're doing it so intensely, with the "war" trope. That's not believable, and it makes it too obvious that they're mostly begging us to look at this and not the economy, when everyone — women included — thinks the economy is the main concern.

Second, they seem to be offering special benefits for women, rather than presenting general issues in an emotionally empathetic way that appeals to women. For example, in the past, we've seen Democrats talk about the wars in terms of tired, worn-out soldiers who need to be returned to the care of their families. This year, the Democrats are talking about seemingly free birth control treatments — something for women that men don't get.

Perhaps it's caring and altruism that resonates with women, not special benefits for us. We like to think of ourselves as unselfish, trying to help others. That's the classic pull of the liberal agenda. Maybe it doesn't work to give us stuff. You need to make us feel that we are giving.

156 comments:

The MAIN-TASK I was given at Chicago HQ was to count and encourage early-voters in 4 states via social media: CO, VA, NC, and IA.

The early-voting begins in a few weeks. If POTUS gets the majority of these votes, then the margin of victory will be greater for him.

I was just a cog in the machine. Every-one who worked in HQ was a cog, with exceptions of David A., David P., Jim M., Stephanie C. and other high-priced constants who came in and out like bus-boys at a restaurant. You never learn the name, except their fancy coffee or food requests at the cafe (inside the HQ). I was happy with Eastwood speech and that made every-one sour to me. I had no choice but to live.

MAKE NO MISTAKE, the election depends on: EARLY-VOTING.

In a bitter irony, I contributed to this and now I am agreeing with Clint about POTUS as an empty-chair. If POTUS wins re-election, will you blame me?

When a liberal doesn't like my opinions on some issue related to women, he is like to start screaming that I am a misogynist who "hates women."

I've raised two daughters, both of them professional women. I've buried two wives.

What that liberal clearly means is that I don't care for the opinions of liberal women. That liberal, I could claim, is a misogynist who "hates women" because he disagrees with the views of conservative women.

It's all an absurdity that relies on the liberal assertion that only liberal women are actually women, i.e., the character assassination campaign that the Dems waged against Sarah Palin.

From its introduction, who could not see that the so-called "war on women" catchphrase was pure demagoguery? It has been more than 17 years. Debbie Wasseman has gone back to an old tainted well and it's nearly dry.

The gender gap is real, but repeatedly citing Rasmussen as if it's the only poll out there is errant hackery. Here's the actual state of the race.

I'll trust Ras over the Gray Lady any day.

PS Ras contends that the proper profile of the electorate this time out is R +4. Considering that most polls have been doing registered voters and even adults at large with skews of D +5, +10 (Q-Pac), and even +19 (Pew), yeah, I don't doubt there are some discrepancies.

Did you read the article? It considers a number of recent polls including Rasmussen (the other major one being Gallup) and takes all of them into account as useful information. To say that you "trust" Ras over this analysis is literally nonsensical.

The problem is that, when it is obviously an exercise in pandering (even if done well), it is also obviously an exercise in condescending. I don't think that will go over well with the feminist crowd. in truth, it doesn't generally go over well with anyone.

Yeah, why should women get special doctors and medical tests (PAP smears and breast exams). We should ban all sex discriminatory medical treatment. Think of all the money we could save by not treating breast cancer or refusing to perform hysterectomies. Yeah, overall we would lose a few men to testicular and prostate cancer, but every effort in advancing the status of women has a cost.

Did you read the article? It considers a number of recent polls including Rasmussen (the other major one being Gallup) and takes all of them into account as useful information. To say that you "trust" Ras over this analysis is literally nonsensical.

Ras is the only one that has done likely voters all along. As to his belief in R+4, YMMV (I'm not sure I buy it completely, FWIW), but he's still been more on the money than anyone else.

Even Gallup's still doing registered.

As I noted, the rest are so skewed for the Demos, they're really not worth consulting. I know the Lefties are clinging to Silver because he called it their way in '08, but this ain't '08.

Well, as they say, the only poll that counts is on election day. If you want to believe the single most Republican-leaning poll and ignore all the others, that's your right. Not sure what it accomplishes though. I would think you'd get closest to the truth by considering all the evidence.

Ask yourself the same thing. Why are contraceptives the only health care product or service so far that has no deductible under ObamaCare? And, indeed, if the insurance companies can no longer sex rate insurance policies, then why should men be required to pay for the additional cost of female health care, esp. if they are not married to such, nor receiving their sexual favors?

If you want to believe the single most Republican-leaning poll and ignore all the others, that's your right. Not sure what it accomplishes though. I would think you'd get closest to the truth by considering all the evidence.

Hey, I look at the Gray Lady/Black Rock poll, the Disney/WaPo poll, the Peacock/WSJ poll and all I see are D +6, D +8, D +10, which flies in the face of what we know about voter registration and party identification since the runup to the '10 elections.

Maybe Ras "leans" R because it's accurate? Even Gallup tends to support their numbers.

And, if anybody wants to consider evidence, how about all the flailing by Axelrod, Plouffe and Zero?

What the hey, shouldn't there be a "Lindsey Meadows" tag for this one? To attract the guys who get thrilled exchanging sexual innuendos with someone they think is a woman (but on the internet can you really be sure you are talking to a French model), one with the same profile name as a porn actress?

The problem with a lot of the polling up to this point, and why that 51% is not really credible, is that most of the polling organizations have been systematically oversampling Dems. Gallop with their D+4, D+6, etc., maybe the worst. The excuse has been that they are following the 2008 exit polls, but we saw in 2010 that that was no longer accurate. And, party registration has shifted significantly, with Reps at least pulling even to Dems, if not overtaking them in the last couple of months.

But, as we head into the final stretch, the polling organizations have a big incentive to be accurate, esp. right before the election, when any excuses they may have for their earlier inaccurate results are no longer usable. What people always remember over the long term are their last polls, and how close they were to the actual vote. So, I would suggest that we are now starting to see the results of the pollsters taking into account the registration shifts and the higher intensity on the Republican side.

Of course, I could be wrong here, and Obama could get the same sort of bounce that Romney did coming out of his convention. We shall see.

According to liberals, as a woman, I am only the poor dear employee who is just incapable of obtaining birth control without insurance (what? You mean I can ask my doctor for a generic? But I'm a woman, I can't ask questions! What would the neighbors think?!) or even of paying a lousy copay (but...that will cut into the money I spend on lipstick, Ben & Jerry's, and Cathy comics. Ack!) I simply couldn't be the business owner who either has principals or some financial sense deciding what sort of product I should buy for my business. Naaaah. Women don't own businesses, that's cute.

And 2010 was a wave election for Reps. Maybe Ras was counting on that wave rather than accurately doing its job of political polling. Perish the thought. Rasmussen's sole purpose leading up to any election is driving the con narrative/meme.

>

Nate Silver at 538.com gives Scotty Ras the skepticism he deserves.

Indeed as a rule, as any election approaches Ras #s usually are based more on reality as "he" doesn't want to look like a total fool!

I yield back the balance of my time to Althouse/cons total fascination/devotion to Ras.

This polling disparity fascinates me because on one hand you've got Nate Silver (who I do really respect) saying Obama is a strong favorite to win and Axelrod and team leaking out missives that they've got this race "in the bag" since they only really need to win either one of Florida or Ohio.

On the other hand, we've got 2010 results showing massive gains at the statewide levels for the GOP in certain blue and toss up states like MI, MN, WI, OH, PA, etc.

I have a hard time seeing how all those 2010 voters aren't going to show up at the polls on Nov. 6 to vote against the national poster boy for government over-reach, I.e. Obama.

And then you have the whole "Bradley Effect" which I thought would come into play in 2008 but did not as Obama won by solid margins in many States. But does the Bradley Efffect come back into play now that people have seen four years of performance by Obama and are people telling the pollsters they will vote for Barack even though there is no way they are doing it in 2012?

And, yes, Steve, the Demos are panicked about turnout, especially since Gallup, not Ras, says Barry's only getting about 90% of the black vote this time - which could be the margin of victory in many states.

They want to herd women into the Democrats' Us vs Them Grievances Plantation. Women balked.

Health insurance is used to pay for treatments of illnesses, not a piggybank to pay for Sandra Fluke's condoms. "Even" women understand that much.

To paraphrase a former First Lady: it requires a suspension of disbelief to fall for "we're better off now than four years ago". Whoever peddles that line won't convince anyone who has a brain cell, and proves himself delusional and out of touch.

"Yeah, why should women get special doctors and medical tests (PAP smears and breast exams). We should ban all sex discriminatory medical treatment. Think of all the money we could save by not treating breast cancer or refusing to perform hysterectomies. Yeah, overall we would lose a few men to testicular and prostate cancer, but every effort in advancing the status of women has a cost."

There are sex-specific medical treatments for both men and women. Why not speak generically about appropriate treatment for everyone? Men have special problems that aren't being conspicuously tended to by the Democrats. What about those "well-woman" regulations? Why not well-men things? Obviously, something is going on!

Here's some feminist critique: The Democrats make it sound as though being female is a disease/deformity/disability. It's actually quite offensive but they think we won't notice because they're giving us free things.

"Here's some feminist critique: The Democrats make it sound as though being female is a disease/deformity/disability. It's actually quite offensive but they think we won't notice because they're giving us free things."

Let me continue this point. The Democrats are presenting women as having special/different/extra attributes -- that is: we are the other. Men are the basic model of human being. There's disrespect in the seeming respect. There's a dark side to this that I want to bring into the light.

"Did you read the article? It considers a number of recent polls including Rasmussen (the other major one being Gallup) and takes all of them into account as useful information. To say that you "trust" Ras over this analysis is literally nonsensical."

Key phrase: "takes all of them into account as useful information."

Make me wonder: what is the relevant use? If I don't trust the NYT/Silver, then I'm going to think he's looking for ways to promote Obama and shape public opinion. If that is the use for which the useful information is used, and there is this immense range of data to reach out and grab to use to the extent that it is useful, and then he mystifies the whole thing with lots of lingo and expertise and abstruse graphing... that foments mistrust, not trust.

Only if you begin with the trust do you feel your trust increasing because of the method used.

Obama will be nominated by a sexual predator who assaulted a woman in the Oval Office.

The prime exhibit for the Democrats' assertions about the War on Women is Todd Akin, who was disavowed by virtually the entire Republican Party after clumsily suggesting that some accusations of rape are illegitimate.

Bill Clinton is beloved by virtually the entire Democratic Party while stating clearly that some accusations of rape are illegitimate, specifically the rapes he's been accused of committing.

"As always, stay tuned and hope those 29 million 2008 Obama voters stay home in 2012."

You talk as though this is an utterly implausible supposition, shiloh. Apparently, you are too busy contemplating the faded Obama poster on the wall of your childhood bedroom to have taken taken a look at Sir Golfsalot's approval ratings. They've changed a tad since 2008. Hell, the Dems had trouble filling the seats for their convention this year. I'm sure their old trick of handing out cigarettes and cash to street people has helped to swell the ranks.

BTW, I just saw Axelrod's performance on Fox News Sunday, and it sure gladdened my heart to see Axel stumbling and bumbling around like - well, a street person at a DNC convention. He couldn't answer Wallace's question as to whether the American people are better off now than they were 4 years ago - because we all know the answer to that one.

But keep the faith, shiloh, bless your little heart! Nate Silver is a seer, a seer, I tell you!;P

Make me wonder: what is the relevant use? If I don't trust the NYT/Silver, then I'm going to think he's looking for ways to promote Obama and shape public opinion. If that is the use for which the useful information is used, and there is this immense range of data to reach out and grab to use to the extent that it is useful, and then he mystifies the whole thing with lots of lingo and expertise and abstruse graphing... that foments mistrust, not trust.

Only if you begin with the trust do you feel your trust increasing because of the method used.

It these comments that represent a real shift for me in the way Althouse seems to be doing her commentary in this election. She's stopped being the largely empirical rationalist that rightly noted a liberal bias in the media to being something more like a conspiray theorist that is arguing on "gut" rather than facts. Here are some facts:1) Nate Silver didn't start at the NYT. After his rather impressive success in the 2008 eleciton they hired him.2) He was one of the earliest voices pointing out the tremendous gains the Republicans were going to make in 2010. He predicted them nearly exactly--I think within a seat or two. There is no evidence that his predictions have ever favored Democrats. They've favored reality.3) He corrects liberal polls as much as conservatives and was instrumental in bringing down Research 2000, the Daily Kos poller.

The old Ann I think would've taken all that in and if she still thought he was biased, presented a compelling case. The new Ann (is it Meade-based?) sees "NYT" and runs away screaming into the arms of Rasmussen.

Final fact:Rasmussen has been consistently Republican leaning in the previous elections throughout the entire polling season in both local and national elections. The final week of the election he changes the weights in his likely voter model and usually ends up very accurate. That does not, however, change the fact that his weighting now is Republican-leaning.

If you are really interested in objective truth, let's have a discussion after the election and see how well Silver's predictions hold. Barring a major change in the underlying the dynamics of the race, his prediction since May has been ~300 electoral votes for Obama. Easily verifiable and a real prediction, so if that comes true what will the excuse on this comment board be? I look forward to checking back in the day after the election. And if you are proven wrong Ann about your (so far) unsupported faith in Rasmussen, will you change your mind or will you jump on some other conspiracy bandwagon about how Obama stole the elction?

One more thing:... and there is this immense range of data to reach out and grab to use to the extent that it is useful, and then he mystifies the whole thing with lots of lingo and expertise and abstruse graphing

It is a real tragedy that a clearly educated woman is basically claiming "math is hard". Silver's math is not really laden with lingo or expertise or abstruse graphing. Most of it is easily verifiable with an Excel spreadsheet. He also offers you plenty of tools to evaluate and change his assumptions. If you don't want to bother taking the time, just admit to being lazy and deciding for no real quantitative reason to trust Rasmussen so we can all evaluate accurately how much to trust you. But don't blame Silver for doing some artihmetic.

"The Democrats are presenting women as having special/different/extra attributes -- that is: we are the other."

The traits they attribute to us are really the same traits they attribute to their other pet groups - namely, stupidity and fecklessless. We are too irresponsible to provide for our own birth control, so Uncle Sugar has to do it for us, just as minority voters are dumber than shovels and can't possibly be expected to obtain photo ID and bring it to the polls.

Of course, I can understand where the D's get the idea that women are helpless, needy creatures obsessed with their own vajayjays to the exclusion of all other issues. That is true of the women they know.

The gender gap of woman for and against Romney is tightening up as woman are starting to pay attention now ( just like men) and are realizing the War On Woman is the democrat economy.

Crack I don't know enough about Mormonism one way or the other to form an opinion on the faith and whether or not it's a cult. Arguendo that it is, there is going to be an election in 60 days and only one of the two candidates, both cultists, is going to win. Voting third party will not change that albeit it will make one feel better. So it comes to down to which of the two cults is the more dangerous one over the next four years? Because that is the choice.

Paulio I would not put too much stock on the polls this year. They are all flawed on both sides. Their too much bullshit all the way around to take the polls to seriously. This could a 1948 (God forbid from my POV) or a 1972 or 1980. I believe the pollsters aren't able to find enough people to truly weigh the sampling and that a lot of the poll questions are biased and those that are polled are probably not truly representative of the probable voters. I am curious to see which if any of the pollsters actually comes close to the real results.

shiloh, how long as it been since you last visited Planet Earth? Rhetorical.

"Kennedy and mittens were basically tied in 1994 and then the campaign began and mittens was toast!"

Oh, goody, hooray! Except Romney is not running against Kennedy this year and, in case you have not noticed from your vantage point on Planet Choom, the US electorate as a whole is somewhat different from Masschusetts voters. (Although I note that even in Mass. which normally elects any degenerate with a D after his or her name, Fauxahontas seems to be running into difficulties.)

I see that the hideously ugly sand sculpture of Obama featured at the DNC has been repaired after taking a hit in a rainstorm. My, that's a relief. I was really worried about it.

So maybe the female delegates can treat bystanders to a topless Slut Walk around the sculpture - sort of like dancing around a statue of Baal. It would certainly add interest.

I think it would also be nice if Sandra Fluke were to perform a partial birth abortion onstage,accompanied by the wild cheering of the delegates. And, instead of a boring balloon drop, showering the crowd with inflated condoms would be a brilliant end to a, like, totally rad week.

Saint, you have to remember, the little animal is here solely to spread as much FUD as he can.

He'd quote the election of '76 (1876, that is) if he thought it would do some good.

He's one of the reasons I say the Lefties in general and the Demos in particular are like the Communist party in the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s - they long stopped believing in the struggle, they're just interested in power.

Consider how the average Lefty reacts to a victory - ObamaTax or the SCOTUS decision for it - "Eat it, Cons". It's about feeling superior and not much else for people like shiloh because they haven't got the entrepreneurial zip of the Republicans, Libertarians, and Conservatives. They think they'll be part of the power structure some day - one of those nice government jobs - but that's about as far as they'll get.

I don't see slut, but the opposite: an uptight prude. Think about it. Liberal women are supposed to be so free and progressive sexually, but act like they have never seen a sex manual as evinced by their obsession with copulation as a requirement whenever having sex. There are dozens of ways couples can pleasure each other, but only ONE thing causes pregnancy: sperm in a vagina.

Instead of free birth control, how about a link to an on line sex manual that spells out things like: you can't get knocked up with saliva or how about trying mutual masturbation until that next paycheck (or student loan disbursement) comes in and you can get your BC pills? The fact that these women can't see past "dick in vagina until ejaculation" is very, very telling.

Finally, has anyone heard of ANY pundit bringing up the issue of shared financial burden and equality between couples? Hey, how about all those guys spewing out all that dangerous baby batter pony up half of the cost of BC? Shit, even I had the balls, way back when, to say "hey hon, a little $$$ help here..." Share the burden!

However, that would contradict the "Life of Julia" paradigm, where men don't exist.

It's instructive how feminists are quite willing to shout "rape!" when there is no rape. The obvious example is in the ultrasound case.

Of course it's really vile to use the word "rape" when there is no rape. Because there actually are rape victims in the world. Rape is a horrible crime. Feminists know this. They know rape upsets us. So that's why they adopt rape rhetoric. "Rape! Rape!"

Who's the rapist? The abortion doctor who's performing the abortion? How can you have a "rape" without a rapist?

According to one study, 99% of abortion clinics already use ultrasounds. It's a common practice in the industry.

So this is a particularly vile example of feminists crying rape when there is none.

What's going on here?

The point of the ultrasound is to humanize the baby. Feminists know this. It's why they object to it. And since they don't want to make that objection, they cry "rape!" instead.

It has everything to do with abortion and nothing to do with the actual crime of rape.

Consider when a pregnant woman is violently attacked (by a man, no less) in order to forcibly abort her child. What do feminists say about that attack? Do they cry "rape"? They do not.

Or consider the men who spike their girlfriends' drink with RU-486, so they will have a miscarriage.

It's an incredibly vicious attack on an innocent woman and her baby. Yet where are the feminists who are calling RU-486 a "rape drug"? They don't exist.

So feminists attack a doctor's ultrasound as a rape. (A rape without a rapist!) While vicious attacks on pregnant women go unremarked and unnoticed.

The Democrats make it sound as though being female is a disease/deformity/disability.

Why, because hormonal birth control is considered preventative medicine? Give some other examples of Democrats saying things that make women sound handicapped.

And how about the official position of the Republican party and Romney? Women who stay home to raise children have the hardest job in the world and should be celebrated. Unless of course they are poor, then they should get off their asses and get a real job.

Shiloh had a comment about 29 million Obama voters staying home in 2010. That really is the whole debate right there. Those voters.

On one hand you'd think there are too many of them to overcome. On the other hand, I know a ton of white middle of the road people who voted Obama that almost feel guilty for their "mistake" and won't be doing it again.

So did Obama win in 2008 because of this steamrolling permanent coalition of Sandra Flukes, blacks, Hispanics and elite urban Dems? Or was his big victory because a ton of middle of the roaders were tired of Bush, the wars, the new financial crisis and thought Obama looked really good?

The part that gives me some hope is the Scott Walker saga. The Dems seemed to throw everything they could at Walker. All of it. For a year straight. Everyone knew the stakes and the unions brought in thousands of volunteers to GOTV. And yet a State Obama won big decided to keep Walker around. And Walker represented extreme conservatism and was he not some charismatic personality. Yet somehow he overcame ALL THOSE OBAMA 2008 VOTERS.

I don't know how this turns out. But both sides have good support for their position at the moment.

What about those "well-woman" regulations? Why not well-men things? Obviously, something is going on!

Now you are just getting ridiculous, pinning a term that has been used for years to a specific political party. Besides, women do have, on average, more health needs than men. Cervical, uterine and breast cancers (none of which men get) are much harder to treat and more deadly than the prostate or testicular cancers. Men don't have babies with the attendant medical costs associated with pregnancy.

There are simply more women-specific health issues than there are male-specific ones. It is not somehow demeaning to women to acknowledge that and devote more resources to keeping women healthy.

Walker was an incumbent w/a humongous $$$ advantage. And if he had lost the recall it would have been unprecedented in American political history.

Romney NOW has a massive money advantage and Obama is losing money each month (running deficits in a campaign? Hilaruious). Obama had months where Romney had difficulty responding to attacks due to a lack of money after the primaries.

Now? Obama is going to hurt.

Romney needs to buy ad time --- lots of it --- during DNC coverage. Run an ad with Juanita Broadrick clips after Clinton speaks. An ad with Biden clips after his speech. News clips of the massive problems in Chicago after Obama talks.

Shiloh, you can't explain away Walker just as I can't discount Nate Silver.

By all accounts the left poured tens of millions into this State for the Prosser race, all the recalls, and the Walker/Kleefisch recall. The actual ad money at the end may have favored Walker, but the overall union spending that wasn't accounted for and cumulative union activity over 15 months was at worst a draw.

Walker was not a charismatic figure like Obama. Walker won on ideology and results. It wasn't like people were telling pollsters they liked Walker personally as much as they liked his governing principles.

Yet how does he do this in a safe blue State where Obama won so big in 2008? Something is different out there than 2008. Not in California or New York. But a lot of the Midwest is in play.

The reason many women cry rape without hesitation or remorse is because women are, on average, more amoral than men. The issue for women isn't justice, an abstract and therefore meaningless, even laughable concept to most women, the issue is the woman's WILL, what she wants and whether the accusation of rape can get her there. "Rape!" is just one more arrow in her utilitarian quiver.

Although it is normal, it is hardly healthy. Historical death rates from complications of child birth were about 1% with at some points (e.g., in industrial cities in the 19th century) 40% of women dying from childbirth.

Yes, pointing out that women suffer from health issues that men don't is the equivalent of claiming there is such a thing as legitimate rape and women can shut down their reproductive systems in response to it.

Saint Croix wrote:We're fighting an actual war in Afghanistan. Remember? An actual war! With dead people! Including dead women!

But that's nothing. No need to talk about that.

Rush Limbaugh! Condoms! Rush Limbaugh! Condoms!

Are you suggesting that women, or feminists in particular are unserious crybabies who can't see the forest for the trees? In the case of the feminists at least, you couldn't be more right. In so far as a women identifies herself as a "Feminist" (note capital "F") it marks her as a fundamentally unserious person, one who's rhetoric can be ignored and scorned.

And Freder, do you know how to get to her Vita? That's how you'll find her scholarly publications.

No I don't, can you provide a link? Now, since she apparently can't be bothered to update her own page I did a search on the UW Law School bibliography. Doesn't look like she has published anything since 2007.

I was in Berkeley yesterday and was struck how I think I saw exactly 1 obama sticker the whole time I was there, and that was one from 2008. Even in the parking lot of the Berkeley Bowl grocery store I did not see one 2012 obama sticker. You can't tell me there is not an enthusiasm gap that must be keeping the obama camp up late at night. If their campaign to demonize Romney/Ryan fails, what do they have? Who is going to roll out of bed to vote for those guys?

Freder Frederson said... Cervical, uterine and breast cancers (none of which men get) are much harder to treat and more deadly than the prostate or testicular cancers. Men don't have babies with the attendant medical costs associated with pregnancy.

Obamacare virtually guarantees that my employer will cut my hours to keep me under the 30-hour limit for full time (and the requirement for health insurance.) There simply is not the margin to afford health insurance for the number of full time employees we have. No one has said anything, but I know the math.

Once I lose 15 hours a week, I'll be forced to either find a second job or leave the one I have and find another for less pay.

I find a way to make ends meet and get ahead, after struggling to get hours at two previous jobs, and now this.

Thanks for the "help." I really appreciate it.

The rest of it, meh, I could care less. Most of the rights for women that are supposedly under threat are the result of court decisions that are extremely unlikely to be overturned (Loving for instance.) All the rhetoric is simply a way to push a wedge issue, one that hopefully backfires.

Lindsey, here's some news that will make your evening! You seem a bit bitchy today (or is that your default mode?) Here you go, Mary Sunshine:

"A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.

Their model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992. It also correctly predicted the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular vote but George W. Bush won the election."

Who knows? This might be the year they're wrong - for the first time in 32 years. Nothing's impossible and as a Wisconsinite I learned from watching people like garage mahal that premature gloating is a bad idea. Still, I know I'd be a tad crestfallen if they predicted Obama to Romney by 52 to 47.

The point is that words matter. What we say matters. But since you're throwing in with a shamelessly opportunistic liar, one who's conditioned to say whatever the person in front of him wants to hear, I'm not surprised this point hasn't been brought to your consciousness.

" any kids or grandkids of yours that happen to reach the age of 86 sure would. "

Here's an idea: Take care of your own. Stop depending on the government to take care of you. Smarten up. The government can't afford to take care of you and no amount of higher taxes on the rich, the middle, or anyone else will change that. Save and invest for your future needs and start young, young man.

They made a disaster, fixate on it for all the wrong reasons, and then blame someone else for not only not fixing it as fast as they'd like, but for not pretending away their massive share of blame for it. That's shameless and irresponsible, my friend.

Using it to double-down on the same policies that caused it would be catastrophic.

I am not depending on anyone. I simply live in a democracy where misfortune hasn't been eliminated. My country's future depends on not pretending misfortune away, but on doing its best to contain when it happens.

You are not a society of one, and neither are any of us. Neither you nor I nor anyone singlehandedly create economies, currencies, nor do you, nor I nor anyone singlehandedly insure their success. It is arrogant, entitled folly to pretend otherwise.

If we don't agree on this as a society then good luck with where your rugged individualism will get you. Mel Gibson made a movie about just such a scenario (early in his career), and I think I'll do my best to avoid it.

Suffice it to say, I didn't notice that wealth meant much in that sort of a world.

Here's another idea: stop worrying about whether others "approve" of your leadership or not. Lead. From the front. Or else we will elect someone who can.

Yeah, well Obama's been criticized plenty for that. Maybe he was wrong to be less arrogant (funny how you blame him for the same things that you also say he hasn't done enough of), maybe he was right. But we've had enough of the mindless lies and drone-like policy debates that merely allow the "strongest" champion of that stupid game to jockey to the top of it. Intelligent, democratic leadership requires some consensus. I know that there are types who prefer division to any absence of the bin Laden-esqe "strong horse" leader. But I figure that America will ultimately distinguish its own preference as one different from from a theory taken from the al Qaeda Leadership seminars.

Machiavellianism has its limits, Sir. But it's further arrogance to demean the guy who finally got the terrorist that made Bush's career. Don't estimate the political precision of a leader who prefers predator drone strikes on a weakened and divided opposition faction.

Meade said..."You do know that Ryan wants to cut the same amount from Medicare, don't you? "

Do tell. Does that mean my 86 year-old mother would lose her Medicare?"

No Meade. But if you bothered to look at the Ryan budget you would see that there is an identical baseline $ cut but different than the Presidents restructuring PLUS no provision for elminating the donut hole in prescription coverage.

How about talking about all the programs that help children? Democrats do very well when they talk about that, and for the most part they deserve to.

Unlike a lot of entitlements, helping children is an investment and children necessarily grow out of the programs.

Instead of talking about how great teachers are, focus on the actual mission of schools- educating children. This somehow gets lost. I get that there is a class of people who got where they are because of a great educator. Good for them. Then there's the rest of us.

Also, somehow referring to how hammered men have been by the recession would be nice. There are a lot of households where men aren't doing so well and women are picking up the slack. It's good women are able to do that- but it's not a happy situation for the men.

How is the gender gap "on the Romster's side"? Either women's votes don't count in some way, so that more-men-than-women is somehow a positive and more-women-than-men is a negative, or the gender gap can't be on anyone's "side."

The only alternative is that the genderal gap is on Romney's "side" because he happens to be winning by 4%. But if Obama is leading by 1 after the Democratic primary, did all of a sudden the gender gap shift by 22%, so now it is Obama winning the gap by 11?